Hi X and all X says: Robert Pirsigs answers to the problem: "the Metaphysics of Quality answers, 'The fundamental purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve society. It says it is immoral for intellect to be dominated by society for the same reasons it is immoral for children to be dominated by their parents. But that doesn't mean that children should assassinate their parents, and it doesn't mean intellectuals should assassinate society." "What's good is freedom from domination by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves."
You've been a good Parrot to copy this from Lila X and you know jack shit about the my use of Therozine, These remarks only emphasize weakness and ignorance of you as a person from my perspective..........your choice. The problem with morally judging people based on their intellectual values is that one of the highest intellectual value's is "prodictability" every scientist with a theory want's his or her theorem been seen proven. Through the whole spectrum of scientific disciplines everybody want's to aim for the rigourous proof like its been done in natural sciences. Nowaday's it's common culture in western society. Big insurance companies thrive on our addiction to prodictability. Even the word "reason" implies causality, it implies the effort of builing verbal intellectual systems that give us the illusion of sertaity that we are able to predict. Pirsig says;"the Metaphysics of Quality answers, 'The fundamental purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve society. The paradox is that with our intellectual arrogance believing to know and prodict we eliminate room for DQ of which Pirsig say's is nessicary to improve society. How do you count for this in your intellectual judgements? 2013/8/28 X Acto <[email protected]> > > > [Ron] > They are beliefs and criticism, but they are based in Bob Pirsigs idea > that we can not only judge other people but other cultures based on > their value of intellectual quality. we most certainly can morally judge > people based on their intellectual > values. > > > Eddo responds philosophically with: > Prove you can! or you're only talking intellectual dickshit! > > > [Ron] > O.k. Eddo, take your thorazine and allow me to clarify, I had said > It was Robert Pirsigs belief that we can, and here is the proof of > him having said this in quotes: > > "Phaedrus thought the reason this movement has been so hard to understand > is that > 'understanding' itself, static intellect, was its enemy." -Lila chptr 23 > > [Ron] > Notice how Pirsig identifies the problem, the mistake of making > understanding > itself the enemy. In his book "Lila" he explains in chapters 22-24 how > cultural > relativism "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is > a completely > purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. Nothing is > right > and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like machinery. There is > nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, > with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing > morally > wrong because there are no morals, just functions." coupled with the hippie > movement ideals: > "the Hippies undermined both static and intellectual patterns. Nothing > better > has been introduced to replace them. The result has been a drop in both > social > and intellectual quality. " > Are the cause of all the cultural paralyisis and the inhibiting of dynamic > intellectual > growth. > > Robert Pirsigs answers to the problem: > "the Metaphysics of Quality answers, 'The fundamental purpose of knowledge > is to Dynamically improve and preserve society. > It says it is immoral for intellect to be dominated by society for the same > reasons it is immoral for children to be dominated by their parents. But > that > doesn't mean that children should assassinate their parents, and it doesn't > mean intellectuals should assassinate society." > > "What's good is freedom from domination by any static pattern, but that > freedom > doesn't have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns themselves." > > "The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone without coercion > cooperates > happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating > fiction." > > [Ron] > Here is the part that you asked me to prove Pirsig wrote: > > "Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their contribution > to > the evolution of life. > A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological > values > is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a culture that > supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is > absolutely > superior to one that does not. It is immoral to speak against a people > because > of the color of their skin, or any other genetic characteristic because > these > are not changeable and don't matter anyway. But it is not immoral to speak > against a person because of his cultural characteristics if those cultural > characteristics are immoral. These are changeable and they do matter." > > Notice "if those cultural characteristics are immoral", what does > Pirsig mean > by immoral ? any pattern that inhibits the contribution to the dynamic > evolution of life. > In Pirsigs four level evolutionary model, intellectual quality is the > highest > and most moral static pattern of evolution. > > "And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society, > has to > know whose side it is on, and support that side, never undercut it. Where > biological values are undermining social values, intellectuals must > identify > social behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and support it all > the > way without restraint. Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no > matter > what its ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological > patterns > with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs, before > those > biological patterns destroy civilization itself." > This city of dreadful night. What a disaster! > lila chptr 24 > > [Ron concludes] > I think the same could be said for the undermining of the standards for > intellectual > excellence, those of clarity, coherence and consistancy in meaning. I > believe Intellectuals > must identify intellectual behaviour, no matter what it's ethnic or > biological connection > and limit or destroy destructive patterns with complete moral ruthlessness > before they > destroy the intellectual community itself. > I understand the need for divertisty in ideas and thought but I think > there is a good case > to be made for identifying intellectualy destructive behaviour and rooting > it out. > > ... > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
